COMMONWEALTH  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


State  Board  of  Education 


Uniform  Taxation  for  School  Purposes 


Hon.  WILLIAM  LAUDER 


Member  of  the  State  Board  of  Education 


1914 


HARRISBURG,  PA.: 

WM.  STANLEY  RAY,  STATE  PRINTER 

1914 


r 


(2) 


r 


n 'o 


h 3 (o 


v. 


1c 

iA 

In  the  apparent  indifference  and  seeming  opposition  to  edu- 
cational progress  in  this  State  there  are  not  the  elements  of 
^ hostility  so  prevalent  a few  years  ago.  Under  the  influence 
of  the  national  and  state  governments  there  has  been  a grow- 
ing perception,  by  the  people,  of  the  value  of  education  and 
r ^ a great  desire  to  obtain  it. 

y.  What  remains  is  not  antagonistic  but  economic. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  people  have  passed  from  indifference 
,f  <3  to  the  opening  stages  of  impatience  to  obtain  what  they  feel 

^ is  for  their  comfort  and  happiness  in  life  and  for  the  develop- 
ment of  wealth  for  themselves  and  for  the  State. 

We  can  no  longer  place  the  blame  upon  the  people;  they 
want  larger  educational  opportunities  for  their  children  but 
cannot  obtain  them.  It  has  become  almost  entirely  a question 
of  finance.  The  same  proposition  is  before  us  to-day  in  the  busi- 
ness world.  The  great  steel  and  oil  companies  spend  fortunes 
on  developing  and  systematizing  economical  details  because 
they  know  it  will  pay.  Smaller  companies  and  individuals,  tho 
they  have  the  same  knowledge,  cannot  do  so  for  want  of  capi- 
tal. The  result  is  a foregone  conclusion,  the  one  without  cash 
is  driven  to  the  wall  by  what  he  calls  “Trust.” 

The  poor  farmer  from  objective  teaching  by  colleges  and  rail- 
roads and  the  current  literature  of  the  day  is  fully  aware 
that,  if  he  could  obtain  better  stock,  economical  equipment, 
and  what  is  necessary  for  the  proper  treatment  of  the  soil, 
he  could  make  money;  but  where  is  it  to  come  from?  Few  of  us 
living  in  towns  and  cities  with  fixed  incomes,  even  if  it  is  only 
a laborer’s  wage,  realize  the  difficulties  surrounding  a farmer’s 
life  who  is  dependent  upon  the  season  for  the  support  of  him- 
self and  family.  The  season  may  be  good  or  bad ; but  in  either 
case  his  taxes  are  the  same. 

Broadly  speaking,  the  present  system  of  education  in  this 
o State,  even  with  the  liberal  appropriation  of  |7, 500, 000  an- 

nually on  the  part  of  the  Commonwealth,  takes  the  last  dollar 
from  the  people  of  the  rural  districts  who  more  than  in  any 
* other  section  need  the  new  education  of  learning  to  do  things 


4 


scientifically  in  order  to  keep  the  boy  from  leaving  the  farm 
and  drifting  to  the  congested  and  unhealthy  life  of  the  city. 

It  is  one  thing  for  us  to  know  “it  will  pay  in  the  end”  bin 
another  to  find  the  means  to  accomplish  it. 

The  people  have  been  educated  to  know  these  things  are  pos- 
sible— they  want  them.  How  are  they  to  be  obtained  ? 

If  we  had  the  forty  years  Germany  has  had  in  vocational 
training,  the  people  might  be  willing  to  make  sacrifices  for  a 
fuller  and  broader  education.  Like  the  Children  of  Israel,  they 
have  heard  the  reports  of  the  spies  sent  out,  that  the  promised 
land  is  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  but  there  are  walled 
cities  and  giants  in  the  land,  and,  like  the  Israelites,  they 
lack  the  courage  to  possess  the  land. 

The  present  attitude  of  the  people  is  similar  to  what  an 
engineer  meets  with  when  his  engine  is  stuck  on  the  center. 
Too  many  things  in  life  are  taken  for  granted.  We  boast  of  a 
great  appropriation  for  educational  purposes,  we  look  at  gen- 
eral averages  and  take  for  granted  that  the  cost  of  education 
is  low. 

The  statement  that  the  cost  of  education  is  burdensome  in 
the  rural  districts  is,  I think,  borne  out  by  the  table  I have 
made  from  the  last  report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  In- 
struction. 

There  are  2534  school  districts  in  the  State  in  which  it  ap 
pears  that  there  are — 


6 

districts 

No  taxation. 

1 

u 

} Mill 

11 

a 

1 “ 

11 

u 

1}  “ 

18 

u 

1*  “ 

3 

u 

1.75  “ 

32 

u 

2.00  “ 

5 

a 

2.25  “ 

58 

a 

2.50  “ 

8 

u 

2.75  “ 

141 

u 

3.00  “ 

291 


5 


r 


2128 


12 

districts 

3.20 

to  3.33  in  cl. 

93 

a 

3.50 

to  3.95 

224 

a 

4.00 

Mill 

4 

a 

4.25 

« 

93 

u 

4.50 

(( 

2 

u 

4.75 

u 

2 

u 

4.80 

a 

234 

u 

5.00 

61 

230 

7 

42 

239 

40 

213 

16 

101 

15 

209 


u 


u 


5.50— 5.75 

6.00 

6.25—6.45 

6.50— 6.75 

7.00— 7.40 

7.50— 7.90 

8.00— 8.33 

8 . 50 —  8 . 75 

9.00— 9.25 

9.50— 9.75 
10.00 


1173 
2 “ 


67 

1 

84 

1 

139 


10.50 
11.00 

11.50 
12.00 

12.50 
13.00 


294 

294 

1 

11 

2 

33 

11 

8 

10 


a 


u 


13.50 

14.00 

14.50 

15.50—15.75 

16.00 

17.00 

18.00 


6 


3 districts  19 . 00 

16  “ 20.00 

1 “ 22.00 

5 “ 23.00 

3 “ 24.00 

406  8 “ 25.00 


2534 

This  shows  that  291  districts  have  a tax  of  3 mills  and  less 
604  “ 3.50  to  5.00  mills 

1173  “ 5.75  to  10.00  “ 

460  “ 10.50  to  25.00  “ 

The  average  rate  of  school  tax  throughout  the  State  for 
year  1911 — 12,  excepting  Philadelphia,  was  7.43. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  positive  deductions  or  comparisons 
cannot  be  made  from  the  rates  of  millage.  It  is  either  too  high 
or  too  low,  due  to  the  method  of  valuation  employed  by  the 
county  or  ELECTIVE  assessor  who  is  frequently  afraid  or 
incompetent  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office.  It  does,  how- 
ever, give  us  an  insight  to  the  rural  taxpayers’  point  of  view. 

The  districts  having  such  high  rates  are  not  confined  to  any 
locality  or  county  but  exist  in  every  county  in  the  State. 


The  following  table  will  show  the  variations  in  each  county. 


County. 

Districts . 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Adams, 

34 

4.11 

8.5 

1.50 

Allegheny, 

118 

4.82 

12. 

.75 

Armstrong, 

45 

9.06 

15. 

4.00 

Beaver, 

53 

6.26 

14. 

3.00 

Bedford, 

39 

9.51 

20. 

5.00 

Berks, 

61 

4.62 

11. 

2.50 

Blair, 

27 

7.03 

11. 

4.00 

Bradford, 

54 

8.16 

23. 

5.00 

Bucks, 

49 

4.67 

8.75 

2.50 

Butler, 

56 

6.94 

13.00 

3.00 

Cambria, 

61 

10.05 

24.00 

5.00 

Cameron, 

8 

8.00 

12.00 

5.00 

Carbon, 

24 

5.66 

13.00 

3.80 

Chester, 

74 

4.65 

9.75 

2.50 

Clarion , 

36 

8.50 

16.00 

2.50 

Clearfield, 

49 

10.12 

20.00 

5.00 

Clinton, 

29 

6.79 

13.00 

1.50 

Columbia, 

32 

8.34  / 

15.00 

4.00 

Crawford, 

58 

7.74 

14.50 

4.00 

Cumberland, 

33 

4.72 

15.00 

2.00 

Dauphin, 

39 

5.76 

12.00 

2.00 

Delaware, 

43 

5.70 

10.00 

2.00 

Elk, 

13 

5.76 

10.00 

2.00 

c 


7 


County . 

Districts . 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Erie, 

37 

6.54 

11.00 

3.00 

Fayette, 

42 

7.16 

14.00 

1.00 

Forest, 

9 

14.28 

25.00 

4.00 

Franklin, 

19 

3.79 

6.50 

2.50 

Fulton, 

12 

8.00 

13.00 

5.00 

Greene, 

27 

3.62 

10.00 

1.00 

Huntingdon, 

47 

10.73 

25.00 

5.00 

Indiana, 

42 

8.28 

15.00 

4.00 

Jefferson, 

34 

9.38 

20.00 

5.00 

Juniata, 

17 

7.29 

13.00 

4.00 

Lackawanna, 

40 

12.07 

25.00 

2.50 

Lancaster, 

61 

3.93 

10.00 

2.00 

Lawrence, 

26 

6.34 

17.00 

2.00 

Lebanon, 

22 

3.81 

6.00 

1.00 

Lehigh, 

25 

4.72 

9.00 

2.00 

Luzerne, 

74 

7.46 

17.00 

2.00 

Lycoming, 

52 

11.60 

10.08 

4.00 

McKean, 

22 

10.18 

14.00 

4.00 

Mercer, 

47 

5.23 

11.00 

2.00 

Mifflin , 

14 

5.50 

8.50 

3.00 

Monroe, 

19 

7.26 

18.00 

3.00 

Montgomery, 

63 

4.80 

8.00 

2.50 

Montour, 

11 

5.54 

9.00  - 

3.00 

Northampton, 

39 

5.66 

11.00 

1.00 

Northumberland , 

37 

6.05 

12.00 

1.00 

Perry, 

30 

5.90 

10.00 

2.00 

Pike, 

12 

9.33 

13.00 

6.00 

Potter, 

30 

10.80 

25.00 

3.00 

Schuylkill, 

67 

9.82 

25.00 

3.00 

Snyder, 

17 

6.64 

11.00 

4.50 

Somerset, 

45 

8.55 

13.00 

5.00 

Sullivan , 
Susquehanna, 

13 

12.07 

13.00 

3.00 

42 

14.40 

25.00 

6.00 

Tioga, 

39 

7.59 

13.00 

4.00 

Union, 

15 

4.40 

6.00 

2.50 

Venango, 

31 

7.51 

13.00 

4.00 

Warren, 

31 

9.54 

14.00 

5.00 

Washington, 

67 

5.45 

18.00 

1.00 

Wayne, 

Westmoreland, 

30 

7.96 

18.00 

4.00 

64 

6.06 

15.00 

1.25 

Wyoming, 

23 

10.60 

19.00 

5.00 

York, 

70 

4.98 

14.00 

1.50 

A few  examples  taken  from  this  list  show: — 

Greene  County,  Average  3.62  Highest  10.00  Lowest  1.00 

Lackawanna  county,  “ 12.07  “ 25.00  •“  2.50 


An  examination  shows  great  variations.  This  condition  ex- 
ists throughout  the  larger  part  of  the  State  and  the  higher 
rates  affect  a greater  number  of  people  than  the  lower  ones. 
One-fourth  of  the  State  has  a taxation  rate  of  10  to  25  mills. 
If  we  assume  5 mills  as  a fair  rate,  then  there  are  only  995 
districts  out  of  2534  that  have  it  in  this  State.  That  these 
rates  may  be  due  to  under  valuation  does  not  minimize  the 
excessive  burden  imposed  upon  the  rural  population. 

In  Philadelphia  the  larger  portion  of  its  population,  having 
the  benefits  of  primary,  secondary,  collegiate  and  vocational 


8 


schools,  pays  no  school  tax  whatever  unless  the  people  are 
owners  of  real  estate. 

Outside  of  Philadelphia,  every  labor,  either  citizen  or  for- 
eigner, pays  $1.00  per  capita  and  the  millage  tax  on  his  prop- 
erty. The  greater  number  of  people  in  the  Commonwealth  do 
not  own  any  real  estate. 

From  the  census  of  1900  one-fifth  of  the  population  of  the 
State  reside  in  Philadelphia;  the  larger  portion  of  these  pays 
no  tax  for  educational  purposes,  while  those  outside  of  Phila- 
delphia must  pay.  The  State  in  its  division  of  appropriation 
is  giving  Philadelphia  over  $900,000  to  repay  what  the  city 
does  not  collect. 

Personally  we  have  not  much  sympathy  with  the  argument, 
for  in  our  estimation  Philadelphia  is  right.  All  our  property 
owners  should  look  after  the  school  tax  the  same  as  an  in- 
surance premium.  Still  it  leaves  the  argument  that  the  country 
districts  are  burdened  more  greatly  than  Philadelphia. 


APPROPRIATIONS. 

These  have  been  liberal.  In  1835  it  was  $75,000  and  grad- 
ually increased  to  $1,000,000  in  1874 ; it  was  $5,000,000  in  1891 
and  continued  to  be  that  until  1907  when  it  was  made  $7,500,- 
000  where  it  remains. 

From  1835  to  1913  the  State  has  given  to  its  schools  $163,- 
286,211.00.  While  the  distribution  of  this  large  sum  is  of  great 
benefit  and  under  the  new  School  Code  is  giving  more  equitable 
results  than  under  the  old  system,  yet  those  who  study  the 
financial  and  legislative  history  of  the  past  cannot  but  be 
doubtful  and  anxious  regarding  this  form  of  revenue  to  the 
school  system. 

The  absence  of  any  obligation  upon  the  Legislature  to  appro- 
priate more  than  $1,000,000,  the  amount  prescribed  by  the  Con- 
stitution, opens  the  door  to  a fear  that  it  may  not  be  main- 
tained when  the  revenues  of  the  State  may  be  impaired  or  when 
other  demands  may  become  strong  for  public  improvements. 

The  Legislature  has  never  made  an  appropriation  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  Code  for  Assistants  to  the  County 
Superintendents, — one  of  the  most  important  wants  of  the 


9 


rural  districts.  The  absence  of  a permanent  and  regular  form 
of  revenue  and  the  strain  to  maintain  the  present  appropria- 
tion bars  the  school  system  from  the  advances  it  should  make. 
New  systems  cannot  be  adopted  if  they  are  affected  adversely 
at  every  meeting  of  the  Legislature. 

Vocational  training  was  adopted  by  the  last  Legislature  car- 
rying with  it  a special  appropriation.  It  will  be  impossible 
to  introduce  this  where  it  does  not  exist  and  where  it  is 

* needed  to  educate  the  children  so  that  they  will  remain  at 
home  and  develop  country  life,  because  financial  conditions 
will  prevent.  Therefore,  this  legislation  will  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  the  city  schools  alone. 

When  it  is  shown  that  in  the  entire  State  there  are  only 
877  secondary  schools  out  of  3,152,  it  demonstrates  that  the 
country  districts  cannot  support  secondary  education,  let 
alone  vocational.  The  appropriation  for  vocational  schools 
covers  only  teaching.  This  form  of  education  requires  larger 
buildings,  better  equipment  and  a delay  of  two  or  three  years 
before  any  reimbursement  is  possible. 

The  causes,  then,  for  this  seeming  indifference  are,  we  think, 
purely  economic.  That  the  country  districts  are  impatient 
for  a higher  and  broader  education  is  clearly  shown  by  the 
adoption  of  the  new  Code  which  went  into  operation  with 
greater  unanimity  and  heartier  support  than  any  other  legis- 
lation in  the  past  generation.  That  the  people  of  the  Com- 
monwealth are  in  sympathy  with  progressive  movements  in 
education  and  will  heartily  support  them  is  clearly  indicated 
by  the  manner  in  which  the  School  Code  has  been  approved. 

The  question  before  us  is: — “ Shall  we  stand  still  and  wait 
until  the  districts  grow  up  financially  or  can  we  devise  some 
system  by  which  present  needs  and  demands  may  be  met?” 
We  think  that  this  is  possible,  tho  the  proposition  we  make  is 
a radical  one.  Baldly  stated,  it  is  that  the  State  should  as- 
sume the  entire  cost  of  teaching  and  pay  teachers  directly  out 
of  state  revenues.  This,  of  course,  is  more  than  the  State  can 

* afford  from  its  present  revenues  and  to  enable  it  to  do  so 
we  propose  a direct  tax  to  augment  what  is  now  known  as  the 
State  and  County  tax  sufficiently  to  relieve  both  taxpayer  and 

> State  from  what  they  are  now  paying. 


10 


To  explain  more  fully,  let  me  present  some  figures. 

From  the  report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
for  1912  we  find  the  entire  cost  of  teaching  in  the  State,  includ- 
ing Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh,  was  for  year  1911 — 12 

$21,137,685.37 


From  the  Secretary  of  Internal  Affairs  we 
find  that  the  total  assessable  value  of  real 
estate  taxable  for  county  purposes  was  $4,838,055,467.00 
A tax  of  5 mills  would  amount  to  24,190,277.33 

or  an  excess  of  3,052,591.66 

This,  of  course,  would  not  be  approved  by 
the  people. 

If  we  take  the  total  cost  of  teaching  as 
given  $21,137,685.37 


Deduct  from  it  the  appropriation  as  dis- 
tributed 6,768,000.00 

Amount  to  be  raised  by  direct  tax  of  3 
mills  — $14,368,685.37 

14,514,166.00 


< 


Surplus  145,480.37 

Carrying  out  this  proposition  would  leave  the  powers  of  di- 
rectors as  they  are  at  present  and  not  infringe  on  them  in  any 
way.  They  would  elect  their  own  teachers  but  the  State  would 
pay  them.  They  would  be  required  to  levy  a tax  as  at  present 
for  debt  and  interest,  maintenance  of  buildings,  equipment  of 
new  schools  and  supplies  of  all  kinds;  this  would  be  a local 
tax  and  controlled  by  the  people. 

What  this  additional  expenditure  would  amount  to  we  have 
not  been  able  to  learn  from  any  of  the  reports.  The  people  freed 
from  the  heaviest  expense  would  gladly  assume  the  operating- 
charges;  with  debts  funded,  the  interest  and  sinking  fund 
charges  would  be  low. 

The  amounts  given  in  the  report  show  a charge  for — 
Supplies  $1,413,559.89 

Text  books  889,392.47 

Secretaries  270,000.00 


$2,573,152.36 


11 


The  unknown  element  is  the  indebtedness  of  the  school  sys- 
tem of  the  State  and  its  fixed  charges.  Even  with  the  imper- 
fect figures,  it  can  easily  be  calculated  that  a direct  tax  of  3 
mills,  plus  the  local  tax,  would  be  infinitely  less  than  the  90  per 
cent,  that  the  districts  are  now  paying.  The  tax  would  be  uni- 
form throughout  the  whole  state  and  at  one  place  the  poorest 
district  on  a parity  with  the  richest.  At  present  we  have  2534 
taxing  districts.  Collectors,  fees  in  these  districts  are  not 
known,  but  allowing  3 per  cent,  a low  price,  the  cost  for  collect- 
ing would  be  8634,130.56,  a large  proportion  of  which  would 
be  saved.  A system  of  this  kind  would  at  once  transform  the 
school  system  and  place  it  upon  a permanent  foundation,  to 
expand  as  the  people  wanted. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1.  It  would  make  teaching  a remunerative  profession  and 
the  teacher  an  employee  of  the  State.  Salaries  would  be  fixed 
throughout  the  State  by  classification  based  upon  merit  and 
service,  no  matter  where  the  school  might  be. 

2.  The  school  term  would  be  uniform. 

3.  It  would  in  the  course  of  a few  years  eliminate  the  local 
and  unprofessional  teacher  now  so  prevalent  in  our  schools; 
it  would  make  it  possible  to  have  better  prepared  teachers  in 
every  school.  Teaching  is  not  a profession  at  present;  the 
large  proportion  of  teachers,  especially  in  the  country  districts, 
being  engaged  in  the  work  as  a stepping  stone  to  some  other 
avocation  in  life. 

4.  it  would  leave  the  control  in  the  hands  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, with  the  amount  of  appropriation  fixed;  the  tax  rate  upon 
the  people  would  be  determined  by  presenting  to  the  Legisla- 
ture the  budget  of  expense  as  in  any  other  state  department. 

6.  It  opens  the  door  to  a reduction  of  the  appropriation  by 
increasing  the  direct  tax  and  vice  versa. 

The  voice  of  the  people  through  their  representatives  would 
govern  and  control.  The  people  freed  from  the  present  burden- 
some taxation  could  and  would  approve  any  taxation  after 
they  have  felt  the  educational  privileges  that  are  bound  to 


come.  It  would  relieve  the  present  inequalities.  It  would  give 
the  same  educational  privileges  throughout  the  state. 

Educationally,  socially,  economically  and  politically  it  af- 
fords a great  opportunity.  Such  a measure  would  appeal  to 
men  of  every  party  and  of  every  section. 


* 


